Recently, SSR has amassed a research base which strongly suggests that it is of significant value in promoting reading achievement when combined with a regular program of reading instruction and that it has a positive effect on student reading attitudes and habits (Moore, Jones & Miller, 1980; Sadoski, 1980). SSR may also be a reading activity that has more points of contact with successful educational outcomes in reading than perhaps any other single reading activity

Sadoski, Mark C

English

ScholarWorks at WMU

Reading Horizons: A Journal of Literacy andLanguage ArtsVolume 24Issue 2 January 1984 Article 71-1-1984SSR, Accountability and Effective ReadingInstructionMark C. SadoskiTexas A&M UniversityFollow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/reading_horizonsPart of the Education CommonsThis Article is brought to you for free and open access by the SpecialEducation and Literacy Studies at ScholarWorks at WMU. It has beenaccepted for inclusion in Reading Horizons: A Journal of Literacy andLanguage Arts by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks at WMU. For moreinformation, please contact maira.bundza@wmich.edu.Recommended CitationSadoski, M. C. (1984). SSR, Accountability and Effective Reading Instruction. Reading Horizons: A Journal of Literacy and LanguageArts, 24 (2). Retrieved from https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/reading_horizons/vol24/iss2/7SSR, ACCOUNTABILITY AND EFFECTIVE READING INSTRUCTION Mark C. Sadoski COLLEGE OF EDUCATION, TEXAS A8.M UNIVERSITY Sustained silent reading (SSR) is a school reading activity which consists of a period of time during the school day when children and teachers in a class or in the entire school read self-selected books without interruption for purposes of enjoyment. This activity has been a popular adjunct to many reading instruc-tion programs for more than a decade. The rationale for SSR is that it will promote reading growth through allowing students to have sustained encounters with self-selected reading material without interruption in the presence of positive peer and teacher role models. Students develop reading skill through application and practice; they develop int,erests and taste through personal motivation and the free pursuit of individual concerns without the constraints of reporting or testing. Also, the avoidance of feelings of failure and stigmatization often engendered by oral reading difficulties exhibited in reading groups helps to promote attitude improvement as well. Recently, SSR has amassed a research base which strongly suggests that it is of significant value in promoting reading achievement when combined with a regular program of reading in-struction and that it has a positive effect on student reading attitudes and habits (Moore, Jones & Miller, 1980; Sadoski, 1980). SSR may also be a reading activity that has more points of contact with successful educational outcomes in reading than perhaps any other single reading activity. Accountability and Successful Reading Programs The demand for educational accountability has been acutely felt in the area of reading instruction. Accountability has been linked with measurable or at least observable results, usually in the form of test results. Despite widespread concerns regarding reading tests, particularly criterion-referenced tests (Schell, 1981), the prevailing attitude of accountability is that effective-ness in reading instruction can be claimed only to the extent to which it produces specific, measured evidence of reading compe-tencies in learners. While this position has emphasized the aspects of reading achievement most amenable to testing, applications that are less direct, but equally important, should be made to promote the less tangible behaviors sought as a result of human-istic education (Strain, 1976). 120-rh The objectives of a sound reading program have been expressed by many authorities in many ways, but perhaps most succinctly by Harris (1970) who contends that the goals of an elementary ir\,rli nG rioGi"m (",n hp e;iollppri i nt,o t,hrr:(; r.rit,r:goii r:~: 1) cn:<2ting f<2vorablc attitlJdc!::', tOWjrO ir;,joinr;, 2) devplnpinc fl1nri,m0 nt 'l1 reading skills, and 3) building personal reading taste and in-terests. In analyzing successful and widely adopted reading programs, Jackson (1978) has determined that exemplary reading programs have certain characteristics in common. Several of these key char-acteristics, associated with effectiveness in reading instruction, according to Jackson are: attention to individualized instruction, a literature/reading enjoyment component as part of the program, and ample daily time spent in teaching reading. Jackson also sug-gests that it rrBy be important to emphasize program elements in the affective dOrrBin, although measures in these areas are impre-cise and will not translate into cognitive gains. There is reasonable evidence both from theory and from the analysis of successful application, that sound, successful reading programs provide for both the cognitive and affective developnent of readers. Accountability should and must address both concerns. Teacher Effectiveness in Reading Rosenshine (1979) has concluded from a review of the litera-ture of student-centered basic skills teaching effectiveness that two major variables are related to gains in student reading achieve-ment, as measured by standardized tests: 1) content covered, and 2) academically engaged minutes. Content covered deals with "opportunity to learn," or the extent to which instruction is directly related to learnings to be assessed and to outcomes that are desired. Academically engaged minutes deals with the amount and degree of student attention allocated to academic tasks. Rosen-shine suggests that this evidence argues for a model of direct instruction, wherein the focus is strongly academic and teacher-controlled. Such programs appear to be related to increased cogni-tive gains in reading. Peterson ( 1979), however, determines from a similar review of literature that while students exposed to direct instruction methods tend to do better on achievement tests, students exposed to open teaching methods tend to exhibit better affective learning outcomes, such as more independence and improved attitude, problem solving and creativity. The open teaching model is characterized by increased student locus of control, wealth of learning rrBterials, integration of curriculum areas, and more indi vidual instruction than large group instruction. Concluding that because these differing teaching models tend to produce different desirable learning outcomes, Peterson says educators should provide opportunities for students to be exposed to both approaches, and cites evidence to suggest that the public supports a wide variety of social and humanistic goals in education that encompass both cognitive and affective learning outcomes. Brophy (1979) similarly concludes that since the instructional situations associated with cognitive outcomes are different and rh-121 apparently somewhat contradictory to those associated with affec-tive outcomes, trade-offs are in order. The Place of SSR SSR is not a reading instruction activity, per S8. It is a supplementary activity that enhances reading instruction. However, this does not mean that SSR should be thought of as a frill. Students need ample time to apply the principles learned from reading instruction to actual reading situations in order to assimi-late and transfer what they have learned in their lessons, and to internalize and integrate reading abilities in their own cognitive ways. Developmental learning theory holds that students need to build independence and mastery at a given level before going on to the next one, and educators agree that supplementary reading is an important aspect of learning to be a reader. Typi-cally, however, time constraints and the pressures of testing gi ve short shrift to this aspect. All too frequently both the "real-book" practice and interest components of reading instruction receive reduced or even insignificant attention. There is an element of uniqueness about SSR in that it is one of the few reading activities that appears to bridge the gap between the learning outcomes associated with cognitive reading achievement and affective reading achievement. Numerous studies indicate that when combined with a regular program of reading instruction, SSR produces cognitive achievement gains in reading eqUal to or greater than other supplementary approaches or no supplementary approach (Oliver, 1973, and 1976; Evans and Towner, 1975; Reed, 1977; Lawson, 1968; Pfau, 1966; Vacca, 1980; Cline and Kretke, 1980; Minton, 19(0). Many studies also indicate that SSR has a positive effect on student attitude toward reading (Pfau, 1966; Lawson, 1968; Wilmot, 1975; Langford, 1978; Sadoski, 1980; Cline and Kretke, 19(1). SSR also appears to address many of the theoretical and applied ideals of complete and successful reading programs as summarized by Harris (1970) and Jackson (1978). This series of contacts seems to define SSR as an activity which addresses the concerns of accountability in reading education as do few other activities: SSR is mutually effective in providing growth in both cognitive and affective areas of reading. It is also an activity in which trade-offs and compromises are unne-cessary because it simultaneously addresses different learning out-comes that are usually achieved through contrary approaches. This characteristic lends an element of economy to SSR: gains in several different objectives may be raealized from a single investment of time. This series of contacts seems to define SSR as an activity which addresses the concerns of accountability in reading education as do few other activities: SSR is mutually effective in providing growth in both cognitive and affective areas of reading. It is also an activity in which trade-offs and compromises are unneces-sary because it addresses different learning outcomes simultaneous-ly, outcomes usually achieved through contrary approaches. Thus several different objectives may be realized from a single invest-ment of time. 122-rh Limitations and Strengths of SSR No reading activity always works, and some problems have been reported with SSR programs. They rmy not always be workable on a school-wide basis (Blake, 1979; MintuIl, 1 '16U). Fl'uulelllb CdlJ emeT'ge when tr1ere is a lack oi' attracti"Ve r"8adirlg IrDLcr'lLll or" poor role mcxieling by teachers (McCracken and McCracken, 1978). Wilmot (1975) suggests that there rmy be an optimum balance between reading instruction and SSR, beyond which more SSR becomes counter-prcxiuctive. Blake (1979) and Gambrell (1978) have suggested ways to keep SSR going, and gocxi judgment regarding when to use more or less SSR appears to be critical to the success of the programs. Distinct strengths are also exhibited. SSR has great intui-tive appeal, and initial enthusiasm for these programs is usually very high. The reported engagement level during SSR for the great rmjority of students is uniformly high, suggesting a high number of academically engaged minutes and extensive opportunity to learn, apply strategies and skills, and develop taste and interests. AlthoL1€"P definitve longitudinal research on SSR is yet to be done, the available research suggests its usefulness in achieving account, ability for student reading growth in its broadest and most appro-priate sense. When its guidelines are met, SSR seems to unite selected positive aspects of both direct and open instruction models into one effective activity. SSR provides for the essential reality testing, practice, and application aspects of reading instruction in rmterials that are appropriate to individual interests and ability levels. SSR seems to unify much that is requisite for effective reading instruction into a single investment of time and is therefore deserving of prominent consideration from those reading specialists, classroom teachers, and administrators responsible for accountability and effective reading instruction. REFERENCES Blake, M.E. SSR revisited. Teache~, 1979, 97, 95-96; 98. Brophy, J .E. Teacher behavior and its effects. Journal of Educa-tional Psychology, 1979, 71, 733-750. Cline, R.K.J., and G.L.Kretke. An evaluation of long-term SSR in the junior high school. Journal of Reading, 1980, 23, 503-506. Evans, H . M., & J. C . Towner. Sustained silent reading: Does it in-crease skills? The Reading Teacher, 1975, 29, 155-156. Gambrell, L.B. Getting started with sustained silent reading and keeping it going. The Reading Teacher, 1978, 32, 328-331. Harris,L.A. Evaluating a reading program at the elementary level. In R. Farr (Ed.) Measurement and evaluation in reading. Har-court, Brace, & World, 1970 Jackson,S.A. The quest for reading programs that work. Educational Leadership, 1978, 36, 168-170. ------- . Langford,J.C. The effects of uninterrupted sustained silent reading on the attitudes of students toward reading and their achieve-ment in reading. Unpubl. Doct. Dissert., Aubum, Ala., 1978. rh-123 Lawson,H.D. Effects of free reading on the reading achievement of sixth grade pupils. In J. A. Figurel (Ed.) Forging ahead in reading. Newark, Del.: IRA, 1968. McCracken,R.A. & McCracken, M.J. Modelilng is the key to sustained silent reading. The Reading Teacher, 1978, 31, 406-403. Minton, M.J. The effect of sustained silent reading upon compre-hension and attitudes among ninth graders. Journal of Reading, 1980, 23, 498-502. Moore, J .C., Jones, C.J., & Miller, D.C. What we know after a decade of sustained silent reading. The Reading Teacher, 1980, 33, 445-450. Oliver, M.E. The effect of high intensity practice on reading comprehension. Reading Improvement, 1973, 10, 16-18. Peterson, P .L. Direct instruction reconsidered. In P.1. Peterson & H. J. Walberg (Fns.) Research on teaching. Berkeley, Cal-ifornia: McCutchan Publishing Corporation, 1979. Pfau, D.W. An investigation of the effects of planned recreational reading programs in first and second grade. Unpublished doc-toral dissert,ation, State Univ. of New York, Buffalo, 1966. Reed, K. An investigation of the effects of sustained silent reading on reading comprehension skills and attitude toward reading of urban secondary students. Unpublished doctoral dissert,ation, 1~e University of Connecticut, Storrs, 1977. Rosenshine, B. K. Content, time, and direct instruction. In P. L. Peterson & H.J.Walberg (Eds.) Research on teaching. Berkeley, Calif.: McCutchan Publishing Corp., 1979. Sadoski ,M. C . An at tit ude survey for sustained silent reading pro-grams. Journal of Reading, 1980, 23, 721-726. Ten years of uninterruptead sustained silent reading. Reading Improvement, 1980, 17, 153-156. Schell, L.M. (Ed.) Diagnostic and criterion-referenced reading tests: Review and evaluation. Newark: IRA, 1981. Strain, L.B. Accountability in reading instruction. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Co., 1976. Vacca, R.T. A Study of holistic and subskill instructional approach to reading comprehension. Journal of Reading, 1980, 23, 512. Wilmot, M. P. An investigation of the effect upon the r&"lding perform ance and attitude toward reading of elementary grade students of including in the reading program a period of sustained silent reading. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Univ of Col., 1975. 

SSR, Accountability and Effective Reading Instruction

https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1925&amp;context=reading_horizons

SSR, Accountability and Effective Reading Instruction

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

ScholarWorks at WMU